Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

How quickly we go from McCabe is a patriot to ignoring the facts about the OIG to asserting that McCabe's criminal lawyer is acting reasonably in obtaining an immunity deal before testifying before Congress arising out of his misconduct while the person who was second in charge at the FBI.

Lying under oath to advance one's personal interests at the expense of the FBI.

Sounds like a patriot, don't it.

We don't know what instructions or pressure Sessions or others in the administration put on the IG at DOJ to come to their conclusion. We'll have to wait for a party untainted by Trump connections to determine the truth.

You keep using this word [know]. I do not think it means what you think it means.

...

I have thought quite a bit about what it means to know something and I do not use the word often but I intended to use it in the post you criticized.

To focus on one of the issues you had a comment about:

davefoc posted:

"5. Trump is known to have fired Comey to stop the investigation of the Russian interference in the election"

I know that Trump attempted to prevent Comey from pursuing the Russian investigation. I base this on the fact that Trump is a relentlessly dishonest person and based on his previous behavior it is absolutely to be expected that if there was a discrepancy between him and Comey, Comey's version is the true version. I also base this on the fact that Trump essentially confirmed that Comey was fired to end the Russian investigation when Trump said this to a Russian official: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” I also base this on the fact that Trump has whined throughout the time of Russian Investigation that he thought Sessions should end it, presumably by firing people that wouldn't cooperate with ending it. ETA: Part of Trump comment made in Lester Holt interview: "And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey] I said to myself, I said, You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

I would like to explain what I mean when I used the word, know, above: I didn't mean that I could know absolutely in the philosophical sense or that I could know in the sense of having mathematical certainty. I meant it in the sense that for all practical purposes I know that Trump lied about his meeting with Comey and that his purpose for firing Comey was to stop the Russian investigation especially the investigation of Flynn. I also know this in the sense that I would be willing to bet my life on my belief that this is correct.

I understand that you think my conclusion is not knowable based on the available evidence. My suggestion is that for reasons that you might not be aware of you are allowing your agreement with Trump on some set of issues to lead you to make false conclusions about the issues being discussed in this thread. Your idea that the Uranium One deal was some great piece of evidence against Clinton was a demonstration of one such false conclusion. The Uranium One scandal is something cynically cooked up by Republican Partisans to smear Clinton. Clinton was not involved in any wrong doing with regard to it. In this thread you have routinely criticized posts that point out Trump malfeasance because the evidence does not meet some very high evidentiary threshold you have set but you jump right on the Conservative conspiracy theory bandwagon when the evidence reinforces your support of Trump.

Please, if you choose to make a response to the above, understand this: I am not a fan of Clinton and I think a lot of the criticism of her is justified, however her detractors have engaged in lying and misrepresentations to advance a partisan agenda and the lies and misrepresentations about the Uranium One deal is a very good example of that.

__________________The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

That the scandal is nothing but claptrap invented by the fevered imagination of hyper partisan, hateful idiots and perpetuated by more of them.

Zig seems to think I'm missing some facts but declines to say what those missing facts actually are.

Zig seems to be JAQing and nothing more.

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

I have thought quite a bit about what it means to know something and I do not use the word often but I intended to use it in the post you criticized.

To focus on one of the issues you had a comment about:

davefoc posted:

"5. Trump is known to have fired Comey to stop the investigation of the Russian interference in the election"

I know that Trump attempted to prevent Comey from pursuing the Russian investigation. I base this on the fact that Trump is a relentlessly dishonest person and based on his previous behavior it is absolutely to be expected that if there was a discrepancy between him and Comey, Comey's version is the true version. I also base this on the fact that Trump essentially confirmed that Comey was fired to end the Russian investigation when Trump said this to a Russian official: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” I also base this on the fact that Trump has whined throughout the time of Russian Investigation that he thought Sessions should end it, presumably by firing people that wouldn't cooperate with ending it. ETA: Part of Trump comment made in Lester Holt interview: "And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey] I said to myself, I said, You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”
I would like to explain what I mean when I used the word, know, above: I didn't mean that I could know absolutely in the philosophical sense or that I could know in the sense of having mathematical certainty. I meant it in the sense that for all practical purposes I know that Trump lied about his meeting with Comey and that his purpose for firing Comey was to stop the Russian investigation especially the investigation of Flynn. I also know this in the sense that I would be willing to bet my life on my belief that this is correct.

I understand that you think my conclusion is not knowable based on the available evidence. My suggestion is that for reasons that you might not be aware of you are allowing your agreement with Trump on some set of issues to lead you to make false conclusions about the issues being discussed in this thread. Your idea that the Uranium One deal was some great piece of evidence against Clinton was a demonstration of one such false conclusion. The Uranium One scandal is something cynically cooked up by Republican Partisans to smear Clinton. Clinton was not involved in any wrong doing with regard to it. In this thread you have routinely criticized posts that point out Trump malfeasance because the evidence does not meet some very high evidentiary threshold you have set but you jump right on the Conservative conspiracy theory bandwagon when the evidence reinforces your support of Trump.

Please, if you choose to make a response to the above, understand this: I am not a fan of Clinton and I think a lot of the criticism of her is justified, however her detractors have engaged in lying and misrepresentations to advance a partisan agenda and the lies and misrepresentations about the Uranium One deal is a very good example of that.

This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.

__________________ď A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Ē
― David Hume

This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.

I totally get your point, but Trump's comments about thinking about Russia as he fired Comey doesn't meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold for me. And I'm not at all partisan in this regard. I'd like Trump *not* to be removed without really overwhelming evidence, since such removal might be really bad for the nation, but I'm not applying the "overwhelming evidence" requirement here.

He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely.

We don't know what instructions or pressure Sessions or others in the administration put on the IG at DOJ to come to their conclusion. We'll have to wait for a party untainted by Trump connections to determine the truth.

I totally get your point, but Trump's comments about thinking about Russia as he fired Comey doesn't meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold for me. And I'm not at all partisan in this regard. I'd like Trump *not* to be removed without really overwhelming evidence, since such removal might be really bad for the nation, but I'm not applying the "overwhelming evidence" requirement here.

He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely.

"And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'."

What is lacking there? That he might have had two related thoughts at once but we're unrelated in reaching a conclusion from one to the other? What is another way to translate that statement?

I totally get your point, but Trump's comments about thinking about Russia as he fired Comey doesn't meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold for me. And I'm not at all partisan in this regard. I'd like Trump *not* to be removed without really overwhelming evidence, since such removal might be really bad for the nation, but I'm not applying the "overwhelming evidence" requirement here.

He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely.

If we look at this one episode in isolation, then yes, there's much room for doubt.

But in the *totality* of Trump's words and actions, it is one of many pieces of a puzzle which together paint a damnable picture.

This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.

The jury would then have to ignore the fact that Trump has the sole discretion to fire Comey. Trump had to know as everyone around him did that it couldnít stop the investigation. Rosenstein recommended his firing. Trump said his reason for the firing.

Youíre completely wrong. You and Davfoc have no evidence whatsoever, youíre totally making a guess. All evidence points against you and his ďbeliefĒ

This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.

I totally get your point, but Trump's comments about thinking about Russia as he fired Comey doesn't meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold for me. And I'm not at all partisan in this regard. I'd like Trump *not* to be removed without really overwhelming evidence, since such removal might be really bad for the nation, but I'm not applying the "overwhelming evidence" requirement here.

He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely.

I appreciate the objectivity your post suggests. A few points:
1. The evidence that Trump fired Comey to end the Russian investigation and protect Flynn involves other evidence than I listed in my post that acbytesla responded to as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for practical purposes it is knowable that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

2. My point was not that firing Comey to halt the Russian investigation was or should be an impeachable offense. It was that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by firing Comey. I would hesitate to bring an impeachment against a sitting president if this was the only crime I believed he had committed.

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose. Right now a significant percentage of the country is under the thrall of Fox News which lies and obfuscates every day about the Mueller investigation and by doing so maintains a significant segment of the population believing that Trump is being unfairly treated by the Mueller investigation. Given the success of Fox News and other partisan media has had with this campaign I believe that the best interests of the nation are served by waiting to see what is discovered by the Mueller investigation and only proceeding with an impeachment if serious criminality by Trump is uncovered that is significant enough that Fox News is forced to abandon its pro-Trump campaign. This will allow cover for enough Republican legislators to move to remove Trump.

4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections. That is the kind of criminality that I think would be enough to unite the country around the need for impeachment and conviction of Trump. I don't think evidence that Trump is actually compromised by Russia or Russian crime families is known to the public right now.

__________________The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.

Originally Posted by davefoc

I appreciate the objectivity your post suggests. A few points:
1. The evidence that Trump fired Comey to end the Russian investigation and protect Flynn involves other evidence than I listed in my post that acbytesla responded to as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for practical purposes it is knowable that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

2. My point was not that firing Comey to halt the Russian investigation was or should be an impeachable offense. It was that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by firing Comey. I would hesitate to bring an impeachment against a sitting president if this was the only crime I believed he had committed.

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose. Right now a significant percentage of the country is under the thrall of Fox News which lies and obfuscates every day about the Mueller investigation and by doing so maintains a significant segment of the population believing that Trump is being unfairly treated by the Mueller investigation. Given the success of Fox News and other partisan media has had with this campaign I believe that the best interests of the nation are served by waiting to see what is discovered by the Mueller investigation and only proceeding with an impeachment if serious criminality by Trump is uncovered that is significant enough that Fox News is forced to abandon its pro-Trump campaign. This will allow cover for enough Republican legislators to move to remove Trump.

4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections. That is the kind of criminality that I think would be enough to unite the country around the need for impeachment and conviction of Trump. I don't think evidence that Trump is actually compromised by Russia or Russian crime families is known to the public right now.

There is far more evidence that Trump has been attempting to obstruct justice than simply firing Comey. There are comments Trump said to the Russians. Comments he made to Comey and to other intelligence officers as well as tweets about how he would never have appointed Sessions if he had known that Sessions would obey the law and recuse himself. His day after day calling it a witch hunt which it certainly is not.

No the evidence that Trump obstructed justice and continues to do so is conclusive. Not that I'm under any illusion that the law will be obeyed. As I said, 'if politics weren't involved' no one would dispute it. But there is no God or Santa Clause either.

__________________ď A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Ē
― David Hume

The jury would then have to ignore the fact that Trump has the sole discretion to fire Comey. Trump had to know as everyone around him did that it couldnít stop the investigation. Rosenstein recommended his firing. Trump said his reason for the firing.

As Trump's lawyers' memo makes clear: The president could murder Comey and not be prosecuted for it. Now, of course, he would never do such a thing, but if he did, the appropriate Constitutional process would be impeachment. This just means that Trump should execute Democrats in Congress.

__________________April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

There is far more evidence that Trump has been attempting to obstruct justice than simply firing Comey. There are comments Trump said to the Russians. Comments he made to Comey and to other intelligence officers as well as tweets about how he would never have appointed Sessions if he had known that Sessions would obey the law and recuse himself. His day after day calling it a witch hunt which it certainly is not.

No the evidence that Trump obstructed justice and continues to do so is conclusive. Not that I'm under any illusion that the law will be obeyed. As I said, 'if politics weren't involved' no one would dispute it. But there is no God or Santa Clause either.

His forging of the message for Jr., the emails Jr. released that show some pretty sketchy communication, etc. There's enough there where I'm convinced as well.

__________________"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

ďThere are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.Ē - Patrick Rothfuss

I appreciate the objectivity your post suggests. A few points:
1. The evidence that Trump fired Comey to end the Russian investigation and protect Flynn involves other evidence than I listed in my post that acbytesla responded to as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for practical purposes it is knowable that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

2. My point was not that firing Comey to halt the Russian investigation was or should be an impeachable offense. It was that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by firing Comey. I would hesitate to bring an impeachment against a sitting president if this was the only crime I believed he had committed.

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose. Right now a significant percentage of the country is under the thrall of Fox News which lies and obfuscates every day about the Mueller investigation and by doing so maintains a significant segment of the population believing that Trump is being unfairly treated by the Mueller investigation. Given the success of Fox News and other partisan media has had with this campaign I believe that the best interests of the nation are served by waiting to see what is discovered by the Mueller investigation and only proceeding with an impeachment if serious criminality by Trump is uncovered that is significant enough that Fox News is forced to abandon its pro-Trump campaign. This will allow cover for enough Republican legislators to move to remove Trump.

4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections. That is the kind of criminality that I think would be enough to unite the country around the need for impeachment and conviction of Trump. I don't think evidence that Trump is actually compromised by Russia or Russian crime families is known to the public right now.

As Trump's lawyers' memo makes clear: The president could murder Comey and not be prosecuted for it. Now, of course, he would never do such a thing, but if he did, the appropriate Constitutional process would be impeachment. This just means that Trump should execute Democrats in Congress.

You still cant get past the simple fact that we have the system we have. If your side wants to change it, they need to first win elections,then change it. The first is quite a tall order, if they did, bet they wouldnít change it.

Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?

Dude literally had to be legally forced to put economic sanctions on Russia, freely gave up secret information in a private meeting with a Russian representative, proposed bringing Russia back into the G7 while alienating US allies, and almost never fails to wax favorably about Putin. How has Trump even been tough on Russia?

ETA: or did I fall for a Poe?

__________________"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?

How? There have been a couple things that were obviously done for show and had little real effect, that unsurprisingly and conveniently happened while the news was more loudly talking about the question of why Trump's sucking up to Putin so much. Even the sanctions were largely questionable and only put in place after a lot of resisting (which also gave those affected plenty of time to prepare and minimize their losses). And then there's the question of enforcement. Has Trump been enforcing them? The last burst of news on that subject suggests that no, he really hasn't.

Trump has been a gift that just keeps giving to Putin since before he even became President. Trying to make direct comparisons to Obama and Hillary, of course, is... odd, on the other hand, given the notably different situations that Obama was dealing with, and that Hillary was never the President. That Trump's been overwhelmingly more pro-Russia than either, though, should be really, really, really obvious to anyone paying attention.

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose.

<snip>

The GOP in the House of Representatives in 1998 (bless their shriveled black hearts), more than a few of whom are still serving, set that standard for us. Lying under oath about something as inconsequential as a single sexual encounter between consenting adults is sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Has Trump reached that threshold? Of course he has.There seems to be little doubt that he has lied under oath multiple times over issues far more serious than a single sexual encounter between consenting adults.

Has he lied under oath while President? Not yet, maybe. But only because he has not been compelled to testify under oath ... yet. Judging by his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth about anything at all, even when it is to his own, personal benefit to do so, there can be little doubt that once under oath, he would lie some more. (Which is probably (certainly?) why he has resisted being put under oath since taking office.)

Would the GOP Representatives in the House maintain the same standard today that they established in 1998?

Of course they wouldn't.

__________________"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

The GOP in the House of Representatives in 1998 (bless their shriveled black hearts), more than a few of whom are still serving, set that standard for us. Lying under oath about something as inconsequential as a single sexual encounter between consenting adults is sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Has Trump reached that threshold? Of course he has.There seems to be little doubt that he has lied under oath multiple times over issues far more serious than a single sexual encounter between consenting adults.

Has he lied under oath while President? Not yet, maybe. But only because he has not been compelled to testify under oath ... yet. Judging by his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth about anything at all, even when it is to his own, personal benefit to do so, there can be little doubt that once under oath, he would lie some more. (Which is probably (certainly?) why he has resisted being put under oath since taking office.)

Would the GOP Representatives in the House maintain the same standard today that they established in 1998?

This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.

Another reason why a jury would not side with you.

Is it your contention that "beyond reasonable doubt" and "100 percent certainty" are the same thing under U.S. law?

Do you think that a judge should offer such a standard as an instruction to a jury?

__________________"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

Under the new, revised definition which is; "anyone who has said or written anything which fails to be completely, unreservedly in support of Trump or any of his cronies".

__________________"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

You still cant get past the simple fact that we have the system we have. If your side wants to change it, they need to first win elections,then change it. The first is quite a tall order, if they did, bet they wouldnít change it.

You're actually correct that I cannot tolerate the system we have -- in part because even if my side (the Green Party) -- did manage to win elections, they still couldn't change it. It's virtually impossible to abolish the Senate. As for Republicans and Democrats, you're being obtuse. Each side wins, and then implements changes to consolidate power.

Of course, nothing in your answer has anything to do with the original point. It's just all-purpose fluff -- like most of your posts.

__________________April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

After all that Bill Clinton's speech in Russia being linked to Uranium One as reason to believe that Clintons are more corrupt than Trump... I do have to wonder how that's being held up in comparison to the very numerous cases of Trump literally using campaign and government funds to enrich himself.

You're actually correct that I cannot tolerate the system we have -- in part because even if my side (the Green Party) -- did manage to win elections, they still couldn't change it. It's virtually impossible to abolish the Senate. As for Republicans and Democrats, you're being obtuse. Each side wins, and then implements changes to consolidate power.

That’s why it’s best to join a party, a real party....and work within it.

Quote:

Of course, nothing in your answer has anything to do with the original point. It's just all-purpose fluff -- like most of your posts.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.